1. EVALUATION OF THE HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE-HOUSING PROGRAM Human Services Agency – Planning Unit Anne Paprocki Goldman School of Public Policy University of California, Berkeley August 2012

2. Agenda Background Research Questions/Methodology Client Demographic Profile Quantitative Findings Key Themes from Focus Group and Interviews Recommendations Areas for Further Research

3. BACKGROUND

4. Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Background San Francisco has over ten years of experience with rental assistance programs The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funded HUD to provide new homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing opportunities San Francisco received $8.75 million of this funding to use from October 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012

5. Homelessness Prevention Funding in San Francisco

6. HPRP Details and Funding Allocations HPRP Provider Funding Allocations and Populations Served Oct 2009-June 2012 ProviderAllocationPopulation For ServicesFor Administration Catholic Charities CYO, Housing STAR Program (CCCYO)$2,880,012$91,856Families Only Eviction Defense Collaborative, Homeless Prevention Legal Consortium (EDC)$1,992,799$151,817All Hamilton Family Center, Rapid Rehousing Network (HFC)$1,508,379$37,710Families Only Holy Family Day Home (HFDH)$603,774$5,325All Tenderloin Housing Clinic Temporary Housing Assistance Program (THC)$1,008,913$29,468Singles

7. Differences between HPRP and Other Rental Assistance Programs Program Differences between HPRP & SF-HSA Qualification CriteriaService Provision HPRP Must have income=<35% AMI (Area Median Income) No dollar limit on payment for back rent (Will not pay more than 6 months or rent) No dollar limit on security deposits Maximum $800/month rental subsidy Up to 18 months or subsidy available SF-HSA Must have income=<50% AMI (Area Median Income) Maximum $1,500 for back rent grants or security deposits Maximum $500/month rental subsidy--up to 5 years of subsidy available

8. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODOLOGY

9. Purpose of Evaluation Assess HPRP at program’s end Inform changes being made to the SF-HSA Rental Assistance Program

10. Methodology Focus group with HPRP Providers Interviews with 15 HPRP clients Conversations with HSA Housing and Homeless Staff Attendance at Homeless Coordinating Board Meetings Analysis of Administrative Data

11. CLIENT DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

12. Single and Family Clients

13. Overall Client Demographic Information HOHSingleAll Clients Combined Age Child (under 18)10%6 1,32029% TAY (18-24)344%402%3758% Adult (25-49)68976%70242%1,64836% Pre-Senior (50-64)16218%80448%1,03723% Senior (65+)243%1328%1884% Gender Don't know20%0 2 Female68976%54833%2,20948% Male21424%1,11666%2,32851% Refused10%0 4 Transgender F to M00%3 3 Transgender M to F30%171%200% Race American Indian or Alaskan Native172%453%932% Asian728%815%3287% Black or African American38743%65939%1,80039% Don't know192%412%1403% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander394%372%1824% Refused51%241%561% White37041%79747%1,96743% Ethnicity Don't Know20%101%200% Hispanic/Latino28131%23714%1,16526% Non-Hispanic/Latino62168%1,42485%3,34573% Refused51%131%361% Veteran Status Don't know61%270%1,55134% No86795%1,47988%2,79761% Refused121%251%401% Yes243%1539%1784%

14. HPRP Client Prior Zip Code

15. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS

16. Types of Assistance Received Category of Assistance ProvidedAll ClientsHOHSingles Homelessness Prevention95%93%98% Homeless Assistance5%7%2% 100% of clients received case management Rental assistance was used next most frequently Other types of assistance varied by client type

17. Dollar Amounts of Assistance Received Average Dollar Amount of BenefitsHOHSingles Rental Assistance Benefit$3,393$1,927 Security Deposit Benefit$1,915$805 Utility Deposit Benefit$407$349 Utility Payment Benefit$644$727 46% of singles received non-monetary benefits only 20% of heads of household received more than $4,000 The maximum grant provided to any client was $17,294 40% of heads of household and 32% of singles received between $500 and $2,500

18. Large Security Deposits Unlike the SF-HSA Rental Assistance Program, there was no cap on security deposits in HPRP 83 families and 5 singles obtained security deposits larger than $1,500 This represents 46% of total security deposits funded by HPRP

19. Client Housing Status Pre-HPRP Housing Status at EntryHOHSingles Housed and at-risk of losing housing65%32% Housed and in imminent risk of losing housing28%67% Homeless7%2% 48% of heads of household and 54% of singles were in rental housing the night before assistance An additional 33% of clients were in subsidized housing the night before assistance 5% of heads of household were in a shelter the night before assistance 4% of singles were in a hotel the night before assistance

20. Client Housing at Program Exit Housing at ExitHOHSingles Rental by client, no subsidy54%56% Rental by client, with subsidy41%33% Don't Know3%4% Hotel or motel paid by client1%2% Other0%1% Of those clients homeless at program entry, 63% of heads of household and 55% of singles were in a rental, with or without a subsidy, by exit The destination of 27% of homeless heads of household and 28% of homeless singles was unknown

21. Client Earned Income and Benefits

22. Client Cash Income at Exit Client Monthly Income at Exit (In Dollars) HOHSingles Number of ClientsPercent of ClientsNumber of ClientsPercent of Clients Not reported40%3 0142%1307% $1-25030%241% $251-500495%24314% $501-75011212%1227% $751-100012814%61236% $1001-125010111%16710% $1251-150010612%1187% $1501-17509010%1056% $1751-200012514%1096% $2001-2250667%292% over $225011212%221% In general, heads of household earned more than singles As a whole, 3% of heads of household and singles increased their income 7% of HFC clients increased their income

23. Client Housing Stability Outcomes

24. KEY THEMES FROM FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEWS

25. Key Findings from Clients and Providers HPRP kept clients from homelessness and let them focus on other needs “Having it [the subsidy] made me not worry. I could focus on what I had to do, on finding work and school.” Providers had different prioritization processes for choosing which clients to serve—the process of getting connected to services was easier for those in shelters than for those in housing. Not all clients remain in the housing where they were when they got assistance “It’s unaffordable in the city.”

26. Key Findings from Clients and Providers Subsidy clients felt 18 months was not enough time to stabilize “You need stability, if after 18 months you have to move, then you’re in danger, at risk again.” Providers note that clients with high monetary needs will be especially vulnerable in the absence of HPRP “Most programs have a financial cap, and the fact that this one didn’t really worked well in keeping people housed.”

27. RECOMMENDATIONS

28. Recommendation #1 Increase prioritization of rental assistance clients so that those with the greatest need are served first. Require Bank Account Statements from Clients Lower the AMI Requirement from 50% AMI to 35% AMI Develop a Standardized Intake Assessment Tool

29. Recommendation #2 Increase program flexibility to improve client stability. Email usage should increase for clients with disabilities The $1,500 cap on security deposit grants should be increased just for families exiting homelessness Subsidies should last for the least amount of time needed for a family to stabilize (this may be more than 18 months)

30. Recommendation #3 Develop better outcome objectives to measure housing stability Conduct a follow up study with a sample of HPRP clients

31. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

32. Areas for Further Research Explore a single point of entry for all rental assistance programs “I was referred, referred, referred, and ended up in the same place again.” Develop new program policies for clients living in subsidized housing (especially those in permanent supportive housing)

33. QUESTIONS?